Survival Vs. Social Instincts - Which Do You Choose?

There's been a lot of threads on sit-x and the fighting that may come from it. And an overwhelming majority seem to say that they would use weapons
to protect themselves and loved ones. While that in itself is sometimes hard to do effectively when it's not target practice, when someone is
shooting back, I'll leave that to another day.

But assuming you are in a firefight, trying to obtain an objective, trying to defend a position, or simply trying to exit the area, will you use
deadly force on those who oppose you?

What if that opposer is a 14 year old kid?

Now do you try to talk him into lowering his weapon and cease the shooting? Do you put yourself, and those you love in your group, in mortal danger
because he's a kid? Do you ignore his age, and respond with deadly force to a deadly enemy?

The real question is, do you live or die right there? Whatever you decide now, before the SHTF, could be the difference in a life or death scenario in
the future.

And it's weaseling to say that you would just shoot to frighten him. If you shoot at all, you're shooting at him, and you stand a good chance of
killing him by accident. And if you fire so wide of the mark that there is no way you could hit him even by accident, then you're not scaring him at
all and only wasting ammo. So the "Shoot" to frighten." answer is not part of the picture here.

Well it will be a horrible situation any way you look at it. What would you have done if it was your Mom or sister you were defending in the 'dome'
at louisianna? If you had a weapon and the perp. was 14 and attempting to rape and kill your family for a sandwich and the armed guards were not of
any help, what would you have done? This will be the situation exemplified by a thousand.
And in your scenario, were you imposing yourself on the 14 year olds territory? Or was he/she attempting to invade yours?
I have an organic farm in the midwest and have a strong neighborhood that will protect its ground and do not plan to just start shooting up the place
and anyone who wanders down our road, but it will be more on a case by case basis.
If you can contribute to the community, if you are there by chance, we are good people with big hearts, but if you make it past the first several
farms and come here to do harm, you would never make it through.
If the shtf and say for instance the shore lines become invaded by whom ever, I can tell you, the midwest and its people would be ready.And thats a
battle no alien invaders could possibly win.

antar, it would be a bad situation for everybody. And everybody would just be trying to survive. If you were passing through, on your way to some
place you hoped to make a stand, would you not still feel that protecting yourself and loved ones was the top priority?

I was raised to believe that a man never struck a woman, under any circumstances. But a long life, and an idiotic war later, I know that isn't always
so. We have some pretty tough women in Iraq right now, capable of blowing you or me out of the saddle in a heartbeat. Can I risk my family because of
the way I was taught?

I know that there are kids as young as 12 in gangs right here in the US that are capable/willing to slit your throat for a pair of tennis shoes. Do I
say no way, let them do it, and then do whatever to my family?

And in the scenario where you are moving through "their" space, they may be a street gang, and you're just trying to leave the area to reach
safety. Do you stay in your home and die from radiation just because it's "their" town now?

There are a lot of ways something could play out. But it's a lot easier to reach a decision now than it would be when it/if it happens. There's a
lot of people that have died while trying to make up their minds on things like this.

The world should be peaceful and never have to come to that but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I'm only 16 and couldn't do much to protect my family without some sort of weapon and even then I would have problems, that's why I want to learn
CQC which would also come handy for disarming anyone you didn't want to hurt. Plus you have to remember that the majority of people especially young
don't have a clue how to use a weapon properly. They just think they do.

Very Good Question. I too believe each situation would have to be evaluated individually. I believe both social skills and survival skills would come
into play here. In situation X survival skills would reign first and foremost, and no one would be trusting of anyone else.It of course is an every
man for himself scenario.However in order for civilization to carry on after, we will have to start trusting one another and forming alliances. For
this you obviously will have to draw upon your social skills to choose who to allign yourself with.I personally will not carry a gun, it draws too
much unwanted attention. And personally I plan on being so far in the bush the only thing I'd have to kill is moose.

Unfortunately, maternal and paternal attributes extend well beyond the family unit. We see it everyday. "A child is to be protected" is at the very
core of humanity's continuity....which in itself carries a lethality not many of us face in the West, but is a reality elsewhere in the third
world.
To answer your question would I shoot an armed youth bent on lethal intent? Yes, to protect family and friends and material things deemed necessary
for survival of the latter.
Let's face it: armed youth motivated to the point that civil law and society are no longer a viable deterrent= social breakdown that is no longer
bracketed by authoritative restraint. In other words, the cops ain't gotta handle on things if a fourteen-year-old has gone wild wild west.
On the other hand, if I got a scared kid on my front lawn "Barney Fifing" a firearm, I will shoot to incapacitate: Pepperspray or LTL 12 GA.
The situation, as always, dictates the level of response.

AccessDenied, you must be pretty tough yourself. No gun, and you plan on downing a moose!

Can I come watch next time you
practice?:lol

Seriously, I agree that at some point groups must evolve. But in the initial stages, it may truly be every person for them and their's. You can't be
sure but what you'll be at a concert in the city or a dental surgery in some far off place, or a friends wedding in Florida. (Where moose are scarce.
:lol

And even once groups do meld, there may still be loners or wandering packs that show up. In such a case as a major long term disaster, there will
inevitably be nomadic raider types that would rather take than work.

So the matter of what do you do, still holds. Hell, it holds right today. What if you and your family have a home invasion by two or three teenagers,
armed and able to cause great harm? Do you just let them have their way because they're young? Do you use force?

This is an issue that few want to face, but in these uncertain times, sooner or later, many of us may have to.

I meant no gun while interacting with people on the street. Sorry should've clarified. Besides we plan to hunt with cross bows. My oldest son is
really into it and is gonna teach me. As for feral teans roaming around, I have 3 strapping boys ages 13, 18 and 20. will be a fair fight I hope.

AccessDenied, having son's to help will be a great asset. They are the core of your proto-survival group. That is a big step right there, because you
know that you can trust them.

One thing I would caution you on is the idea of fairness. Fairness is most often a dead weight around your neck when it comes to outright survival.
Ask any combat soldier what fairness, yours or the other person's, ever had to do with winning. And when it's your family, you can't afford to be
fair.

A big sit-x will be unfair when it happens, and a long time in getting back to where that word, or concept, has any relevance. It's unfair to use a
crossbow to kill an unarmed moose, but that will have to be overlooked in the interest of feeding your children and yourself.

Please excuse me if I sound cruel and harsh. If/when a major sit-x strikes, only those who are mentally prepared to face the realities will live.
Those who shrink from the hard choices will perish as surely as day follows night.

It is to this end that I started this thread. Here, on this board, we have time to think the unthinkable, and tell ourselves it is just a game. But in
even letting these ideas have range in our minds, we become better prepared should a day of real darkness come.

If it came down to the crunch and i personally tried all i could to talk the kid into putting the weapon down and they wouldn't and was going to drop
me stone cold dead then i'd have to bite the bullet and injure the kid or kill he/she i have to cause no one else is going to help me or keep me
living except me and the decisions i make. But great thread really makes you think about crossing the moral line of societies values vs survivialist
values.

Shoot to kill, I dont care if its a one eyed, one armed, one fingered grandma shooting at me she only needs one finger. When society breaks down its
survival of the well armed and protected untill some form of stability takes place.

It depends on what state of mind he is in if he was scared shaky and possibly on drugs I would possibly shoot him if he pointed a gun at my family. If
however he just looked nervous and scared then I would try to use non lethal force.

If anyone points a gun to me... consider it dead (armed or unarmed). Be it my life, or my family's.

No matter what age, sex, race, etc... If it should happen, where me and the person ends up pointing guns at each other... I would shoot first and
worry later. I cherish my own life (don't we all) too much to take a risk in trying to convince him into lowering/dropping his weapon. If it were to
to end up as the perpetrator has a gun and I am unarmed... then I'll try and convince him into submitting, or trick him in some way (depending of the
environment/situation)

Without excessive quoting-NGC2736, I do not think your post was harsh.You are absolutely right.I value greatly threads like this one to get me
thinking and learning more before sit X.For the record I greatly value your knowledge and opinion.

It is heartening to know that so many feel as I do. I work to find ways to avert such a scenario, but you know what they say about mice and men and
plans. We may have our worst fears for reality.

The other question, that is just as lethal, is the sharing of resources. In a sit-x, resources become life and death decisions as well.

Do you share, even when you only have enough to take care of your own group? At what point do you rebuff others, with force if need be, to protect
what you cannot do without or replenish?

Do you decide on a case by case basis? take a vote within your group? follow government directives?

How do you plan to handle those resources in your possession when others might perish if you do not aid them, and some of your group might perish if
you do?

If you are ever in a sit-x, and in a leadership position, these and a thousand other things will be on your shoulders. The questions I ask are hard, I
know. But I want to give people a chance to face these things, and start the thinking process before it hits them on Day One of the New Time.

If you have found this thread informative in some way, please flag it so others will see it and have a better chance to survive.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Do you share, even when you only have enough to take care of your own group? At what point do you rebuff others, with force if need be, to protect
what you cannot do without or replenish?

Perhaps those who ask to join your merry band 'after the event' should be given a list of provisions/equipment to procure as their contribution and
demonstration of resourcefulness to the group as a whole

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.